Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aditya Thapar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 June, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 19th OF JUNE, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7115 OF 2023
BETWEEN:-
ADITYA THAPAR, S/O SHRI HEMANT KUMAR
THAPAR, AGE - 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION -
BUSINESS, R/O - B.G. BY-PASS OM
ENGINEERING WORKS, VIDYARTHI NAGAR,
KOTWALI, DISTRICT GUNA, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ARSHAD ALI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI, GUNA
DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. ANKUSH BALMIK, S/O SHRI
RAMCHARAN BALMIK, AGE 24 YEARS,
R/O - VIDYARTHI NAGAR, HOUSING
BOARD COLONY, GUNA, MADHYA
PRADESH.
........RESPONDENT
(SHRI RAMADHAR CHOUBEY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
ORDER
This is first appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in
short "Act, 1989") for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant, as he is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.148/2023
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Guna, District Guna for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506
of IPC and Sections 3(1)(da, dha,) 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989.
Prosecution case, in brief is that appellant and complainant
Ankush Balmik are neighbours and there is a Government land in
between their houses, on which complainant's mother and father have
constructed a hut. On 16/2/2023 at about 14:00 hours with an intent to
encroach upon the aforesaid Government land started demarcating the
same and when complainant objected, he knowing the fact that the
complainant is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
community abused and insulted the complainant calling his caste and
assaulted on his head by brick.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Government
land situated in between the houses of appellant and complainant was
allotted by the Housing Board to the appellant. Complainant is regularly
trying to encroach upon the aforesaid land. He had threatened the
appellant and his family members that he will implicate them in SC/ST
Act. In this regard, prior to the incident appellant had made written
complaints dated 5/4/2022 and 6/9/2022 to the Chief Minister and
Collector, Guna, copies of which were also sent to other police officers
and authorities. On the date of incident, complainant again tried to
encroach upon his land and when appellant objected, he has lodged a
false and fabricated FIR against the appellant under SC/ST, Act taking
advantage of SC/ST, Act. Except the offence punishable under the
SC/ST, Act, all other offences alleged against the appellant are bailable
in nature. His custodial interrogation is not required, therefore, the
appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments
of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary &
Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another, Case No. Appeal (Crl.)1250
of 2003 decided on 8/10/2003 and Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of
India & Ors., Writ Petition © No.1015 of 2018 decided on 10/2/2020
as well as the order dated 9/5/2023 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Dr. Kartikeya Sharma and 2
others Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Criminal Misc Anticipatory
Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.-3107 of 2023.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer
and submits that specific allegations have been made against the
appellant with regard to the offence punishable under the SC/ST, Act.
Considering the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989, this appeal for
anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The allegations made against the
appellant are serious in nature, therefore, he should not be enlarged on
bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that appellant and
complainant are neighbours and a dispute was going on between them
with regard to the land situated in between their houses and prior to the
incident appellant's father had made written complaints dated 5/4/2022
and 6/9/2022 that complainant was threatening him to implicate his
family members in SC/ST, Act. Under these circumstances, considering
the nature of allegations with regard to offence punishable under the
SC/ST, Act and also considering the nature of injury found on the body
of the complainant, without commenting anything on merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on
bail. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
9/5/2023 passed by the Special Court is hereby set aside.
It is directed that in the event of arrest or surrender of the
appellant before Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer in relation to
aforementioned crime number, he shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail
upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Authority/Investigating Officer.
The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer as and when required and will
cooperate in the investigation. He shall further abide by the conditions
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not
affect the further proceeding of the Court below.
This Appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.06.19 18:47:20 +05'30'
